Bell v. Dole

11 Johns. 173
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1814
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 Johns. 173 (Bell v. Dole) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bell v. Dole, 11 Johns. 173 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1814).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

By the act of 1801 persons appointed to office are directed to take and subscribe the necessary oaths before such persons, as shall be appointed for that purpose, in the nature of a dedimus potestatem. The act also directs how such oaths are to be disposed of when taken; and in the section under which the present action is brought, declares, that if any person whose name is inserted in the commission of dedimus potestatem, shall not make return of the rolls, &c. within six months, he shall forfeit 25 dollars. It was not under this act that the defendant derived his authority to administer oaths; but under the act of 1809, (sess. 32. c. 141., sess. 36. c. 13. 1 N. R. L. 385.) which extends the power to the judges of the respective counties. This act directs the rolls to be disposed of in the same manner as prescribed in the former act, but does not extend the penalty for neglect. It is a settled rule, that penal statutes are to be construed strictly, and not extended by implication. Under this rule of construction, the penalty given by the act of 1801 cannot be extended to persons not [174]*174named in the dedimus potestatem. The judgment must, accordingly, be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McComb v. Belknap
30 Abb. N. Cas. 119 (New York Supreme Court, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 Johns. 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-dole-nysupct-1814.